Avaaz: clicktivist heroes or Soros wolf in woolly disguise?

by BlackCatte

Avaaz, with a membership topping 40 million, is one of the princes of the clicktivist phenomenon. These virtual warriors for justice are everywhere and have been for a while, and once you somehow arrive on their mailing list you are going to be bombarded with their earnest updates until you find the magic unsubscribe button that sets you free. Their website looks like the frantic centre for some brilliantly synchronised social experiment of the kind Big Brother would be into if Orwell was writing his book now, and it offers this self-description:

Avaaz — meaning “voice” in several European, Middle Eastern and Asian languages—launched in 2007 with a simple democratic mission: organize citizens of all nations to close the gap between the world we have and the world most people everywhere want.

Which is mistily inspirational in a way that wins universal approval simply by its refusal to commit to any specific course of action. Post stuff like this on Facebook and you get a hundred shares, because of course, by definition, everyone wants to close the gap between the world they have and the world they want. To this extent Avaaz is selling Hallmark cards.

However, more specifically they claim:

Avaaz empowers millions of people from all walks of life to take action on pressing global, regional and national issues, from corruption and poverty to conflict and climate change. Our model of internet organising allows thousands of individual efforts, however small, to be rapidly combined into a powerful collective force.

Their forte – as with all such groups – is of course:

…signing petitions, funding media campaigns and direct actions, emailing, calling and lobbying governments, and organizing “offline” protests and events — to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people inform the decisions that affect us all.

And, we have to admit, Avaaz does this better than almost anyone. Any mainstream social conscience issue you can name, Avaaz will probably be all over it like a rash. Petitions are their game and they have petitions running about everything. Right now they want to stop hunger, ban the Confederate flag, save the whales, stop global warming and find a safe place for Syrians.

Which of course is great and admirable – provided they are what they claim to be, and are truly voicing honest grassroots opinions – not someone’s bought and paid for propaganda.

So, what – beyond the beguiling presentation – is Avaaz? Who set them up? Who pays their bills? Who mans their ramparts?

Follow the money

According to Wiki (quoting the Guardian):

Since 2009, Avaaz has not taken donations from foundations or corporations, nor has it accepted payments of more than $5,000 (£3,100)…Instead, it relies simply on the generosity of individual members, who have now raised over $20m (£12.4m)

$20 million? That’s a lot of generosity right there. But yes, the money is definitely rolling in. In an article from 2012, Empire Strikes Black links to Avaaz’s 990 form for 2010, which demonstrates an annual income from “contributions and grants” of $4,767,187 in 2009, and almost half as much again in 2010. Similar returns from 2012-13 show figures of $11,611,547 and $14,545,459 respectively.

Which if nothing else makes me want to add a “donate” button to our front page. I mean – who knew, right?

The claim that all this comes from “the generosity of individual members” is of course impossible to quantify, as is the claim that Avaaz “doesn’t accept payments of more than $5,000.” We need more information here. Does this mean there’s a ceiling of $5,000 per donor? Or can a single donor hand over unlimited parcels of $5,000? And how about numerous “individual members” from one family or organisation? We seem to be getting a frank disclosure, but on closer analysis we really aren’t being told very much.

Also of some note – according to that Wikipedia page Avaaz was founded in 2007, so the claim that “since 2009, Avaaz has not taken donations from foundations or corporations” obviously implies that before this time they did take such donations. No one at Avaaz seems to have more to say about that though. Do we assume its founders funded it for the first two years? Yes – according to this site, but the links it offers as proof are all dead or hijacked, so this can only be offered as a suggestion at this time.

And who are those founders? Well,that much is no secret. You can read it on their own site:

Avaaz.org was co-founded by Res Publica, a global civic advocacy group, and Moveon.org, an online community that has pioneered internet advocacy in the United States. Our co-founding team was also composed of a group of leading global social entrepreneurs from six countries, including our founding President and Executive Director Ricken Patel, Tom Perriello, Tom Pravda, Eli Pariser, Andrea Woodhouse, Jeremy Heimans, and David Madden.

Who are those guys?

Res Publica and Moveon.org? Ricken Patel, Tom Pravda, Tom Perriello, et al? Who are they? A bit of googling can tell us a certain amount about them.

Res Publica is a bit hard to pin down. Their Wiki link leads nowhere now, and their URL is dead. There seems to be nothing much about them online that adds more information than the brief summary offered by Avaaz, but NGO Monitor tells us they:

received grants totaling $250,000 from the Soros Open Society Institute in 2008.

Though it gives no source so that can’t be verified. This article from the National Catholic Reporter in 2004 fills in a few blanks. It tells us Res Publica was founded by three of the people now running Avaaz – Ricken Patel, Tom Perriello and Tom Pravda, and was – back in 2004 – claiming to be “developing the political and communications infrastructure of the religious left.” Why they have now disappeared from the scene seems unclear, but it’s pretty obvious that Avaaz is basically Res Publica under a different name.

Moveon.org are easier to trace. Their website is still active. They are a Democratic party front group, currently campaigning against GMO salmon, the Confederate flag, Greek austerity and numerous other things, many of which seem eminently reasonable. According to the WaPo they received $1.6 million from “George Soros and his wife” back in 2004.

Now let’s also take a look at those “leading global social entrepreneurs” who co-founded Avaaz.

Ricken Patel

Ricken Patel – darling of the faux left media

The most high-profile of these is Ricken Patel. He’s a special darling of mainstream media, which likes doing features on him as a fearless crusader for marginalised truth and justice. I’ve found at least two Guardian articles lauding his virtues, while People Magazine – with bold self-parody – included him in an article on the world’s most eligible hot humanitarians. In 2013 the Observer called him “the global leader of online protest“. That same year Intelligent Life Magazine ran a similarly adulatory piece on him, complete with a pic of Rick sitting in a street cafe, looking hip and caring and keeewl. “Can we change the world, one click at a time?” it asked, before answering “Ricken Patel, a young Canadian, thinks so, and he now has tens of millions of followers to show for it.”

So apparently the neo-liberal, pseudo-left press love this man and really – really – want us to love him too.

His media fans tend to avoid more than a brief summary of Ricken’s life prior to co-founding Avaaz, and becoming its well-paid Executive Director. Maybe because the Oxbridge/Harvard education and stints working for the Rockerfeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the United Nations, and consulting for the International Crisis Group don’t fit that well with the carefully cultivated image of a young average guy just trying to make a difference.

The International Crisis Group has George Soros as a “trustee” (my how that man gets around). Other trustees include Wes Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Sweden, several retired state department officials, ambassadors, diplomats and prime ministers.

So, a prime breeding ground for potential clicktivists as you can see.

Tom Perriello

Tom Perriello

Tom Perriello, the second name on Avaaz’s list of individual founders is a “United States State Department official”, and a lawyer, who “served one term as a U.S. Representative for Virginia’s 5th congressional district.” He is also a member of the Democratic Party. He formerly served as President and CEO of Center for American Progress Action Fund and Counselor for Policy at Center for American Progress.He apparently worked as a “consultant to the International Center for Transitional Justice” in Kosovo (2003), Darfur (2005), and Afghanistan (2007) where he worked on Orwellian-sounding “justice-based security strategies”.

Tom is also an avowed supporter of the war on terror, who, while in the House of Representatives (2009-11) voted for the continuation of U.S. military action in Afghanistan and opposed removing the United States Armed Forces from Pakistan.

ordinary joe and grassroots activist Tom Perriello with his good friend the POTUS

If you are thinking this must be a different Tom Perriello from the one listed as an Avaaz founder, sorry, no. Check his Wiki page for yourself. It’s all there. Tom is that rare animal – a state department official and ex-congressman who also happens to be a radical activist. And here’s a pic of him arranging the “fire Wolfowitz” banners in preparation for a big Avaaz demo back in 2007 to prove it.

Tom Pravda

The third of the triumvirate who were also the original founders of the vanished ResPublica, Tom Pravda is a bit more of a mystery. He has no wiki page, and not much online biography. I haven’t found any photos of him. He allegedly attended Balliol College, Oxford (like Patel). SourceWatch seems to be the only source for this, and I don’t know where they got their information, but here is what they say:

Tom holds a BA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Balliol College, Oxford, where he won several academic scholarships and prizes. He has worked for the United Nations Development Program in New York, and as a diplomat dealing with European Union development policy and relations with the Middle East and Africa for the Foreign Office of the UK Government. He designed and oversaw a research project looking at ex-combatants’ attitudes to justice in post-conflict Sierra Leone for the International Center for Transitional Justice. He has written about African politics for the international consulting group, Oxford Analytica, and interned for Global Witness and the World Development Movement.”

So, Tom Pravda, late of the United Nations Development Program and the UK Foreign Office is from very much the same school as his two ResPublica bros.

At this point the unduly cynical might suggest this is a passing strange set of CVs to find in the founders of any grassroots political movement. But we are not such cynics, are we?

Avaaz and US warmongering

Sadly, the strangeness doesn’t stop there. In their own very different way Avaaz and their endless petitions can be as unwittingly helpful to certain western interest groups as can the ever-helpful ISIS. In Syria, for example, between 2012 and late 2013, just when the US and NATO were trying to whip up public opinion for a war with Assad, along came grassroots, no-agenda Avaaz wielding petition after petition demanding the west send “3,000 international monitors” and impose a no-fly zone over the entire country. This is how they put it in June 2013:

To the Arab League, European Union, United States, and Friends of Syria: As global citizens, we call on you to take immediate action to stop the deadly terror in Syria. Enough is enough. We ask you to immediately demand a ceasefire to stop the bloodshed so that parties can come to the negotiating table to agree on a way forward. Until a ceasefire is reached, we call on you to work together and with the international community to enforce a no fly zone to stop the bombardment of Syria’s civilians and ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those most in need.

Avaaz, ladies and gentlemen. the only grassroots organisation in the world that actually begged the US to go to war with Syria.

Patel believes in using the exponentially growing number of internet users to his advantage with online petitions and propaganda slogans; as well as the ability to syphon donations from ignorant members to the tune of $13.5 million annually and $3 million during fund-raising events. While Avaaz claims to facilitate the individuality of protesters, it uses mob-mentality tactics to create a large online community of people who will defend the organization.

It’s a sobering thought which certainly puts that too-easy clicktivism in a whole new light. Their cutesy cosiness and one-stop solutions do make them an obvious candidate for diversionary “designer activism.” Who’s going to bother to check out “LetsJustBeNiceDotOrg” before clicking on their bright green “save the earth” campaign button? I mean, we all want to save the earth, right? And those aesthetically pleasing, smiling, perfectly ethnically diverse guys in the PR photos, with their matching (green) logo tee shirts are just so beguiling. Click, sign, move on, with the comfy feeling the earth is now a bit safer, thanks – ever so slightly – to you.

We’ve all been there, and all felt slightly queasy about the unanswered questions, but clicked anyway. That is human nature. If we wait around long enough to realise we’ve signed a petition for involuntary euthanasia or something, it’s just too late. We’re already a non-erasable statistic. A clicktivist who has clicked and been counted for eternity.

We have to admit, if shills and honeytraps are needed, then some kind of faux, or semi-faux clicktivist website would be a terrific place to start.

So what of Avaaz? Should we offer it and its gang of super-well-connected founders the benefit of the doubt? Does it matter why Ricken wants us to sign up and save whales, or why Tom Perriello was out there campaigning for Wolfowitz to be fired? Isn’t the fact they are speaking up enough?

No, I don’t think so. Motive matters, and if we ignore it we risk losing the meaning behind anything we try to achieve. We become as hypocritical as those we allow to set our agenda. Any organisation that tries to put a moral glaze on calling for the invasion of sovereign countries, and the inevitable resulting murder of innocents is not worth defending in my view. If we just let their obviously corrupt, or at very least hugely misconceived agenda pass without comment we are conniving at a deception. Well-intentioned people risk having their energies misdirected or wasted in causes that are ill-defined or even entirely bogus. And one discredited clicktivist can easily cast doubt on the many genuine grassroots movements trying very hard to do good.

Avaaz is not what it pretends to be. If I was a member I’d go find the unsubscribe button that would stop their malignantly saccharine agitprop taking up any more space in my inbox.

And if those 41 million trusting souls all did that I think the earth might actually be a bit more saved.

If you think Avaaz is betraying its donors, its millions of followers and its avowed objectives, why not follow the principles of grassroots activism they claim to represent and let them know how you feel?

“The banality of evil transmutes into the banality of sentimentality. The world is nothing but a problem to be solved by enthusiasm.” — Teju Cole

I didn’t know that avaaz has had a political influence on the Syrian war, but i remember the petition, and i think i haven’t signed that one because it is a bit out of their league, but maybe i did after a brief reflexion, not important. Anyway, to stop shooting … that’s good! and if then someone takes advantage to continue fighting, then that is bad. It is not avaaz that went in to go kill. If they acheived a ceasefire then i am very proud. With the new world president Donald, I will soon experience destruction of what I care for. Here i sit in front of my computer on the other side of the world, with tears in my eyes. Ok not at this moment, but for example when trump won the election and that he said … well, forget it.

Oh please. Not even Avaaz is claiming it had anything to do with the ceasefire. And btw it was actively calling for a no-fly zone not to “stop shooting.” A no-fly zone would mean a lot more shooting, not less, and it would also have meant a probably nuclear war with Russia.

You are too obviously the worst kind of clicktivist. You think that signing petitions and clicking and sharing somehow absolves you from the responsibility to inform yourself. Avaaz is made to distract and confuse people just like you.

Avvas is clearly biased when it comes to certain topics. Last year, they released a petition to stop the Chinese Dog Meat Festival. While, I understand why this event may be disturbing to many in the west. Everyone has to realize that every country has every country’s own cultures and that there is no correct “culture”. Besides that, coming from China myself, the petition launched against the festival has many clear errors when it comes to facts and their implications. The article implies that we the Chinese “love” dog meat soooo much because we are intentionally cruel and want to spite the west. The truth however, is that a tiny region of China started eating dog’s meat more than 500 years ago probably due to famine and now they view it to be something as normal as us eating cows and chickens.

So I launched a petition on the very site addressing to the Avvas crew, listing down all the facts and hope they would at least get the facts right in their petition. People have all the right to be against the practice and the festival. But they also deserve to know the truth. Till date, I have seen no edits or changes to the original post. Neither have I received any replies.

I think that Avaaz is a leftist front to aid in the destruction of nation states. They are raising money for supposed fear of Donald Trump shutting them down (scaring the trendy sheep into donating). I have just put up a petition on Avaaz for Donald Trump to ban the site! Please sign and share: https://avaaz.org/en/petition/Donald_Trump_Shut_Down_Avaaz/

I think Aavaz does do a good job but… as for donations I stop right there because I do not have the money to throw around. If I were a Millionairess and had money to give away to worthy causes i would make sure they accounted to me how the money was being spent. I feel the Clinton Foundation for example is a front for filling both Hillary’s and Bill’s pockets. The poor get only get 6% out of the donations where does the rest go? I am appalled!!

Thank you for the effort, it’s a clever article in the “look at me exposing bad guys” style. And in that sense, it’s pretty good, full of information etc etc.
Once thing: it is extremely biased. The tone of the Article is exactly that of the pro-trump mud-flinging at democrats hate-inspiring posts that were rampant during the elections. I also noticed one single, oh-so-innocent, little dig at the democrats sonmewhere in the deluge.
Maybe someone should “look into” the author in the same way the author has “looked into” Avaaz.

“Extremely biased” is actually an understatement! I don’t claim to be an expert on Avaaz or its founders, but I know a hatchet piece when I see one. BlackCatte finds it necessary to hide behind a pseudonym while trashing other people’s life’s work as well as their intentions. And I can’t overlook the fact that she inserts an extremely negative “quotation” about Ricken Patel*, without ever saying who she’s “quoting.” Does that mean it’s a false quote? Quite possibly. It certainly means that no one can challenge the “quotation.” One thing’s for sure: her hands aren’t clean. And I can’t help but suspect that someone who’s so determined to damage an effective progressive organization isn’t doing it for the good of the world.

[*NOTE FROM ADMIN: – the source of the quote about Patel is linked to in the article!]

Also, this piece: <a href=”http://www.theartofannihilation.com/avaaz-imperialist-pimps-of-militarism-protectors-of-the-oligarchy-trusted-facilitators-of-war-part-i-section-i/”>AVAAZ: IMPERIALIST PIMPS OF MILITARISM, PROTECTORS OF THE OLIGARCHY, TRUSTED FACILITATORS OF WAR | PART I, SECTION I.

NGOs, it would appear, are indeed an integral part of the propaganda apparatus of the empire in which we live and deliberately so.

As such, they both legitimize the system and help to perpetuate it by co-opting, redirecting and ultimately dissipating the energetic upsurge of popular dissent into the cul-de-sac of “non-violent direct action” — you know, the peaceful ‘one-off’ theatrics ‘they’ call mass protests and the online mass petition –- instead of underscoring the need to undertake the long and protracted work of creating grass-roots organizations aimed at dismantling the system that is literally murdering people in their millions.

As such, NGOS, instead of helping to make our collective predicament more obvious, namely, that ordinary people have under the current institutional structures of the West no influence on the policy decisions of governments and can in no way effectively bring corporations to heel on behalf of the common welfare, they, the NGOs, under the tutelage and management of the American Ivy League bourgeoisie, endeavor to reconcile us to the established order of corporate rule, by helping to create the illusion that well-mannered and inconsequentially thespian challenges from the masses have an effective “democratic’ effect on the political and corporate establishments very much owned and operated by and for the rich.

Consider, for example, Obams’s recent announcement that the Keystone XL pipeline will not be built, or that he is banning new drilling off the coast of Alaska and parts of the Atlantic coast. Who do you think are flattering themselves over these decisions and presenting them to the world as victories? The environmental NGOs that have been promoting protests and online petitions against these projects, right?

So you see, signing petitions and marching in the streets, waving banners and carrying a prop resembling a pipeline work, right?

Except that no one is mentioning the fact that all of the economic incentives for these oil projects have since 2014 completely evaporated, at least for the time being, not to mention that Warren Buffets BNFS <a href=”http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2016/12/05/standing-rock-profusion-collusion-big-money-profits/”>oil-by-rail operation is in direct competition with pipeline infrastructure it does not control or own, and wouldn’t it be nice if nothing new got built at this time, so that Buffet can keep his current monopoly operating in the black.

Who do you think has more pull at the White House? Buffet the billionaire or the online clicktivist heroes? I mean, if you were really trying to understand the true rationale for the current pause in drilling or the temporarily shelving the XL project, or even that of the opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline at Standing Rock, which of the competing explanations here being suggested do you think is more probable?

You know, it might be worth both a think and a read and a bit of research.

Norma, this is an exceptionally well-turned sentence (I mean, the whole comment is quite good):

“…they, the NGOs, under the tutelage and management of the American Ivy League bourgeoisie, endeavor to reconcile us to the established order of corporate rule, by helping to create the illusion that well-mannered and inconsequentially thespian challenges from the masses have an effective “democratic’ effect on the political and corporate establishments very much owned and operated by and for the rich.”

I especially like the “inconsequentially thespian challenges from the masses”!

“Patel believes in using the exponentially growing number of internet users to his advantage with online petitions and propaganda slogans; as well as the ability to syphon donations from ignorant members to the tune of $13.5 million annually and $3 million during fund-raising events. While Avaaz claims to facilitate the individuality of protesters, it uses mob-mentality tactics to create a large online community of people who will defend the organization.”

I’m afraid I don’t see an issue here. You reveal that the founders of Avaaz, an organisation that has members all over the world and seeks to address international and national issues of social justice, have backgrounds in national and international organisations dealing in social justice issues. You reveal that the organisation began with a large donation from Mr Soros, though since then it has been financed with smaller member donations. You reveal that sometimes Avaaz and the Democratic party have the same goal, and you belive sometimes their campaigns are wrongly conceived. Specifically, you don’t support no-fly zones as a mechanism to reduce hostilities, though many people are of another opinion. I see nothing in these revelations that is either surprising or controversial.

Well, let’s let leave the question of whether it’s moral for oligarch-funded war-lobbyists to pose as a grass-roots human rights group, and just think about the no-fly zone issue. Perhaps you could develop for us how the mechanism of a no-fly zone has been used historically to achieve peace and a cessation of violence and/or civilian deaths?

Certainly. I understand the no-fly zone during the Balkan war of the 1980s limited air response by the warring parties and prevented a bloody conflict from being even worse. I also understand that no-fly zones have been proposed in Syria in order to allow civilians to leave Mosul and other cities before the campaign began to evict Daesh. The no-fly zone in Iraq was established at the tequest of the Arab League and the transitional Iraqi government in order to stop the bombing raids on civilian targets that Gaddafi was engaging in. It had widespread support in Iraq at the time. Although the campaign later broadened the notion of what was necessary to protect the civilian population, it doubtless saved the lives of many Iraqi civilians. And although it was not strictly speaking carried out in a no-fly zone, the Berlin air lift was able to carry supplies to beseiged Berlin only because an air corridor was free of Soviet planes.

Mosul is in Iraq. The Yugoslav wars were in the 1990s. Gaddafi was president of Libya not Iraq. None of your examples resulted in cessation of civilian casualties, in fact quite the reverse. I suggest you read more deeply.

But do you not understand what makes a no-fly zone in Syria a completely different matter from these local tragedies? To achieve a no-fly zone in Syria NATO would need to shoot down Russian planes. This would result sooner rather than later in a nuclear war that would end life on this planet.

Thank you for correcting my myriad errors – of course the Bosnian NFZs began in 1993, the earlier NFZS over Iraq were in 1991 and the Libyan intervention began in 2011 until the data of Gaddafi. You claim that none of these resulted in cessation of civil casualties – maybe not, but there are strong arguments to be made that the number of civilian deaths was significantly less than would otherwise have been the case. During the Bosnian conflict, neither side was able to establish an air presence, which protected civilians from air attack. Between 1991 and 2003, the Kurdish populations received humanitarian aid and were not attacked with chemical weapons, as had been feared wold happen. However, it is difficult to make accurate assessments when we don’t know what would have happened in other circumstances.

Nevertheless, I completely agree with your larger point, that a declaration of a NFZ in the current conflict in Syria would be useless without Russian support.

I almost thought this was a joke with KLrsten Ankers post. How could you get so much wrong. This reminds me of a muddled spam letter you sometimes get from a Nigerian ‘investor’ wanting partners to get rid of loot.. I had to laugh in the end. Extra ordinary ignorance of basic facts. Gaddafi was sodomised by Hillary sponsored mercinaries who used the same signature for Ambassador Stevens in Bengazhi given hillary forgot to look after the foot soldiers doing the dirty work. No Fly Zones particularly in the case of Hillary Clinton engineered in Libya are a squall of death in every direction. A sovereign nation has been hamstrung on defending itself and its citizens. No other words for it : complete destruction.

But on another note this is a very revealing article that should be shouted out. I had a huge email rampage with them over Libya in 2011 and the lies they were sporting so this all falls into place. I got this letter back given they must have been hounded by so many on it for there dishonesty at the time and they still stayed put on their original position. I see now why over the last day or so I have been busy posting alternative narrative about the death squads of Soros’ lot in Syria: White Helmets than looked at tweets of Avaaz and realised they were the main architects of this sorry set of lies. They are so sloppy with the acting of all those so called civilians on the ground saying this may be the last time you see me…..God its woeful stuff. Amateur night.

I’m interested in your label “oligarch-funded”. Given the millions you mention in your article that have been donated by individual supporters, Mr Soros’ cobtribution has been well and truly watered down
It is certainly true that he has contributed – and do you say that oligarchs aren’t entitled to contribute to grassroots organisations? Are you suggesting he must buy a Washington lobbyist to participate in the democratic process? – but by now I suggest he is merely a “supporter”. Maybe a “founding supporter”, but not a “funder”.

Youre still there Anker. What is the purpose of this dialogue about Soros are you trying to support him somehow or hoping to get a job with one of his organisations. Im sure theres room there somewhere for the flourish of points you brought up in your prior post, bit of witless nonsense.

Agree. I’m reading this article, and all these things they’re saying in scary tones, I’m thinking, “So what’s so bad about that?” Chummy with President Obama? Fine. Oxford educated? Great! Money from Soros – why the f*ck not? The Right has all their big donors, why shouldn’t the Left? I agree with whoever said it’s supposed to be a hatchet job – but to me, the hatcheting is rather ineffective.

I found some funny public petition with sheepfunding – sorry, crowdfunding online. It is sponsored by this avaaz and it wants the UN to free Aleppo from the nasty Russians. In other words, they want to protect ISIS. I googled avaaz.soros and I found this nice and informative article, thank you.

I read in Politico today about Avaaz doing a get out the vote drive for expat Americans. I looked up “Avaaz George Soros” and got this article. Thank you, it was very informative. I’m sure Avaaz is looking for the expats staying in third world places like Haiti or Ghana and not the expats like me who worked overseas for an American company supporting the military.

I’ve only known about Avaaz for a short while. But, indeed, I always wondered just what I was getting into. This is a great piece of journalistic investigation. It’s informative and offers wisdom to boot. And it’s scary to think that Avaaz isn’t alone. I just catch blurbs here and there and can’t remember everything, but other clicktivist operations out there are smelly. Which ones and exactly how, I don’t remember.

“So what of Avaaz? Should we offer it and its gang of super-well-connected founders the benefit of the doubt? Does it matter why Ricken wants us to sign up and save whales, or why Tom Perriello was out there campaigning for Wolfowitz to be fired? Isn’t the fact they are speaking up enough?” Avaaz can carry on for some time with feel good, safe stuff that you and I would endorse. That’s exactly how it gets us to let our guard down. True, The more you pay attention – the Avaaz petition to create a no fly zone over Syria is a good example – then the less likely you are to not spot the very wrong direction a pro war, pro US government petition is going and pull back. But if you are still a part of the Avaaz community and someone who has passed on Avaaz petitions to others (and I assume a statistic in a number count of members that Avaaz can use for selling itself to would-be joiners), then you’ve given impetus to the petition and moral support for Avaaz that might sway others, including your friends or family. And if you are not that well informed, but you’re in the habit of clicking on Avaaz’s innocuous petitions – save the whales etc – then you may assume that a petition you’re not sure about or simply don’t understand is still the right sort of petition to support. After all, Avaaz are the good guys.

Informative, maybe. Biased: completely. The tone of the Article is exactly that of the pro-trump mud-flinging at democrats hate-inspiring posts that were rampant during the elections. I also noticed one single, oh-so-innocent, little dig at the democrats sonmewhere in the deluge.
Maybe someone should “look into” the author in the same way the author has “looked into” Avaaz.

This you have precisely nailed. Avaaz are just getting their profile up with numbers to engage sincerely then WHAM out they come with the propaganda. Right now in the last week it has been relentless given how Alleppo has been taken back by Syrian and Russian support. ITs astounding how Samantha Power can sleep at night after almost like a drunk at the UN council meeting snubbed the Russian Foreign Minister with the US assault where 165 Syrian soldiers were killed and numerous injured in the surprise attack under a ceasefire last month. It was unbelievable to watch her start blaming the Russsians. Then she walked out when it was Russias to turn to speak with facts about what took place.

I was once quite happy to provide monthly financial support for Avaaz as I supported many of their petitions, which were largely non political. This support ceased immediately when they petitioned for an end to the ‘siege of Madaya’, in Syria, which was unequivocally blamed on Assad. The whole campaign, supported by The Guardian and the BBC, depicted this as being wholly the fault of the Syrian government and showed pictures of starving people which looked highly suspicious. Two minutes delving showed me that this narrative was far from the truth. The pictures were ‘borrowed’ from a wholly unrelated tragedy, the Red Cross had recently delivered aid and this aid was being confiscated by ‘rebel’ soldiers. After this blatant piece of propaganda, I withdrew all support from Avaaz. Many of their subsequent campaigns landing in my inbox have been very feeble calls for ‘an end to racism’, or ‘remembering the legacy of Jo Cox’. There is a subtle thread of lending the incontrovertiblity of a benign, worthy campaign in order to give credence to another one with a politically insidious purpose. I’m not having any part in it, nor of some of the other ‘apolitical’ campaign groups doing the rounds.

I must confess that in 2009 or so I subscribed AVAAZ, read their newsletters (vividly written and well translated to German language) und supported some of their campaigns by my signature. But when I experienced the results of the “no-fly zone” over Libya, which destroyed a prosperous country for decades, I found the “Unsubscribe” button and used it! so many thanks for this article and the investigative material presented thereby!

Excellent article; these types of organisations are designed to attract and manipulate young people.
This is a very much needed dissection of what lies underneath these so called agencies that claim to promote democracy.

Follow OffGuardian via Email

OffG on Twitter

OffG’s editors

About

OffGuardian is the creation of people from different parts of the world committed to the original vision which drew us together on The Guardian‘s CiF pages...Tired of being censored by our beloved, once-upon-a-time left-of-centre newspaper, in February 2015 we decided to create our own platform for airing our unacceptable opinions.

If you’re also sick of being stifled, moderated, slandered as 'Putinbots' or worse, and censored to oblivion on any of the Readers’ Comments sections of our mainstream press, come and tell us about it.